This user may have left Wikipedia. Propaniac has not edited Wikipedia since August 3, 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Please leave any comments or notifications for me below. I will normally respond on your Talk page, unless you ask me to respond here or somewhere else.

I tend not to be around on evenings (EST) or weekends. It's also not especially uncommon for me to take unexpected wiki-breaks of several days or more, as I become distracted by higher priorities than Wikipedia (and just about everything is a higher priority than Wikipedia). If you're wondering why I've dropped out of a discussion or something like that, you might want to check my contribs to see if I've been active lately.

Past discussions on this Talk page:

• User talk:Propaniac/Archive1
• User talk:Propaniac/Archive2
• User talk:Propaniac/Archive3

I believe that you and Handicapper have been discussing some magic words (they look like templates, but they're not) ie ((CURRENTDAY)), ((CURRENTMONTHNAME)) and ((CURRENTYEAR)). I believe that the intention was to show the last editing date, whilst these always show the date that the page is being viewed. If it is still desired to show the last amendment date, try using ((REVISIONDAY)), ((REVISIONMONTH)) and ((REVISIONYEAR)) but bear in mind that these will show the date of the last edit of any type: if placed within an infobox, they will not show the last edit to infobox content, but the last edit to any part of the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Bowers [1], Richard Klitzing [2], and George Olshevsky [3] all use these nicknames. With some links to the websites, this should be okay. 4 T C 06:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like all that's needed is a statement in each article along the lines of "It is referred to as xxx in Jonathan Bowers' 'short names' terminology" (or whatever wording you feel is most clear and accurate) and preferably a citation for that statement. FYI - your last URL (for Olshevsky) doesn't seem to work anymore. Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently participated in a discussion about moving Sarah Brown (spouse). The request has been modified so please revisit it here for further discussion if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and Irish Historic House books recently published for reasons why your request to delete the article should not proceed. Andrewtriggs (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Taelus's talk page.
Message added 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Taelus (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They now both have the 2-move tag on both talk pages. Discussion should be consolidated on the Independence Hall talk page, since its discussion is further developed. If I completely blew doing this, please help me fix it Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you aware I've been on Wikipedia for 9 months and know you can't use a template in your signature and that my signature is actually a joke? Please check it out. Template:Scarce signature. 19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think nine months is a long time, I just thinks it's enough time to get a grasp on the basics of signatures. I apologize for any offense you've obviously taken to my comments. Template:Scarce signature. 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, sorry I forgot to AGF Template:Scarce signature. 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intent was to eliminate white space. Pepso2 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at AA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I have replied to your post on my talk page. CrossHouses (talk)

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at CelticWonder's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

How about the apparent reason that the Press DAB is a poor article? You have missing descriptors and entries that are not even referred to by the term being disambiguated. "Press" is a slang term for the news media http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/press but it is a machine to people who work for a living --Hutcher (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

The National Register of Historic Places database is slowly being changed from an older system to a newer system called "NPS Focus." This is causing some confusion since the change is being done step by step. Apparently the older format and the newer format is not as compatible as they first thought.

Regarding your recent changes of Carpenter Schools is in error. They are listed and the infobox info you removed had the correct info. They are part of the "Upriver Residential District." In the older data each building was listed. In the newer database that has not yet been added. See the following "newer" link. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0

May I suggest you restore your related Wiki NRHP changes pending the conversion and completion of the NRHP database?

Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Jrcrin001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Jrcrin001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Jrcrin001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Talk:Jewish_wedding.
Message added 18:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Joe407 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Jamesofur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carpenter named articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you also edit DABs, so was hoping we could discuss to come to an agreement on the editing of a simple DAB page like Ubuntu, as consistency in DAB is very important IMHO, and I wouldn't like to think that you go around fixing entries to a different level than me, see what I mean? Widefox (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I probably have added the red link initally to the DAB page to make things easier. I don't see any reason why my second edit was rejected; red links are specific tools to alert editors that a concept is potentially notable enough to warrant creation of an article. I was going to leave it like that for a short time, and if an article wasn't created by then, either by me or another editor, I'd put a reference "Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks" in the FMCSA article. (I didn't do that initially because no other programs would be mentioned, and it would look awkward for only that one to be there.) As for doing the latter, if I'm reading WP:DAB and MOS:DAB correctly, a term listed on a DAB page does not necessarily have to have a dedicated article of its own, only some kind of specific mention somewhere in any article, including those with significantly different titles. Mapsax (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I saw the discussion about glass breaking in the Jewish wedding article, I did as you request and sticked in a "Breaking of glass" heading (check it it here : glass-breaking ceremony) and wrote a couple sentences explaining to you goyim why the hell this is done :-D. Apparently some editor has taken the whole work of editing the Jewish articles for himself, so all the information about that ceremony was scattered in other articles, which I moved to Jewish wedding. I hope you can find all the information you need to know now, and let's hope that will be not removed from there again (seems that some editor removed in the past the whole Glass breaking section as you can see in the talk page. Have a good day.--79.181.5.23 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pau (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bluemask (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the amount of attention devoted to the film adaption in an article about the novel, what do you think about cutting out some of that content and creating a new article about the film? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for revising the lead, much better now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the Bolognia push. Regardless, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Vevčani Carnival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Empty Buffer (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Catherine Flon on banknote.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for correcting the previous edit to List of accolades received by Up in the Air. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I amended the templates per your concerns. It's a strange thing for you to get all worked up about though... There's no reason someone blocked indefinitely should get to keep their userpage and it's correct to place indefblock notices on userpages. Placing them on talk pages is incorrect, because that template places the page in the "temporary userpages" category. Pages in that category are periodically deleted and talk pages are almost never supposed to be deleted. Anyway, I changed the puppeteer notice to "suspected" (which is true). <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote here before reverting me? The amended information was correct. Why are you so determined to preserve the userpage of an indefinitely blocked user? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Antonia (name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Antonia. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Fuhghettaboutit's talk page. -- ~~~~~

OK, the last part of the move was finished. Thanks for the reminder. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the page to a list title as there was clearly agreement that this was necessary. The open-ended title reflects the fact that the list currently needs expansion to cover subsequent swimmers (I meant to add a list expansion tag to the page, but there was a power cut while I was searching for the correct template to use so it never got added). As far as I can see, there was no need for the move to be formally advertised as no-one was disputing it and the target was unused.

If you disagree, feel free to: (1) move it again to the title of your choice; (2) merge it into English Channel; or (3) merge the over-detailed swimming section in English Channel into it (which would be my preferred option); or (4) if you still feel it needs deleting, take it to AfD. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be posting the AFD imminently. I don't even care about the move, but your edit summaries clearly implied that it was the result of the discussion, which it was not. If you're going to go around closing RMs, please familiarize yourself with WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, particularly the bits about Non-Admin Closures and about how to close the actual discussion, which you didn't (meaning it's still being "advertised"). Propaniac (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did quickly skim the page -- I assumed from reading the instructions that a bot would take care of the move page when the move template had been removed from the talk page -- but I believe it was listed there erroroneously, as I mentioned. And I'm an admin, by the way. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to have to assume that we're simply from two irreconcilable worlds and will never understand each other, because nothing you say or do makes any sense to me. You didn't think it needed to be "formally advertised", by which I assume you mean "listed for discussion," because nobody was disputing it, even though it hadn't been suggested yet. Then you removed the prod because the article can be expanded to include all (1,000) successful swimmers, and you move it to "list of successful swimmers," but then you say (but not on the article talk page, and only after I badger you about it) that you think it should only include the notable swimmers.

Apologies on overlooking the adminship. And yes, you're right, removing the reqmove template does de-list it from RM, but you haven't actually closed and archived the discussion. The reqmove template had instructions on how to do that before you removed it. Propaniac (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Propaniac. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Propaniac, since you contributed to the article List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air which is a child article to Up in the Air (film), I thought that you would like to know that JuneGloom07 Talk? , Courcelles (talk) and I nominated the article for FLC, cf Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1. I would appreciate your considered comments on the nomination. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your point about brevity of descriptions on dab pages. Respectfully, I think you may have extrapolated from a single case a bit much and at the expense of the bigger picture. While I did add description to some entries, and some might have edited otherwise, I certainly think there's a case to be made that a minimal description can actually make it easier to skim because the uniformity is easier to visually parse, and that such is not necessarily a basis for criticizing readability. I would certainly hold that orange is shorter and better overall as a result of the sum of this editor's contributions, and do take something of an exception to having the length of descriptions singled out for comment about editing. I must say further that I find it ironic to be criticized for wordiness given that in the body of my experience with dab pages, beyond this single case, I have generally found it appropriate to shorten descriptions rather than lengthen them. In any case, I appreciate the need for communication that presumably inspired your comment, but also the importance of an atmosphere encouraging useful contribution to WP overall, and would suggest perhaps a more encompassing evaluation of others' edits. ENeville (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respectfully, I would need to say that, even in review, the edits in question do not support the conclusion that there was a misunderstanding of MOS:DAB as to appropriate description length. However, even presupposing that they did, what concerns me is a lack of appreciation of significance beyond that. I'm certain that if one looked elsewhere, one would be able to find inconsistencies between my edits and MOS guidelines as written at the point in time of the edits, even if I refer to those guidelines in an edit summary. I believe that the same would be true for all editors, yourself included. I would hasten to note that minor inconsistencies do not necessarily invalidate referencing guidelines, particularly on points subject to interpretation such as suitable length of dab entry descriptions. Also, I am not implying that one need assess all edits by a given user in order to initially assess their contribution to a given page (although I did observe and do stand by the broader irony of the criticism in this case). I am, however, suggesting that you consider the totality of the edit on which you comment. And I am suggesting that you consider the atmosphere on WP resulting from the nature of your comment: in content, omission, and tenor. Do you really want to make your only comment to an editor who made a dab page substantially shorter overall be a criticism that it wasn't short enough? Presumably, you would not desire that such edits simply not be made. Unfortunately, we generally will not find that others conform their contributions exactly to our standards, here or otherwise. We may find that people look elsewhere for places to contribute if all they hear is criticism, though. I think we need to take care that contributing to WP not be the sort of thing from which people are motivated to depart because their participation is imperfect. ENeville (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you do this. I am hoping its just a mistake and will count on you to repair it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Actually it was because we used to have a big side plate and I wanted the tables to fit around it. Organize it however you want. Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm actually wondering if Twins should redirect to the Minnesota Twins, with a hat note to the DAB. Does that make any sense? If so, I guess I'd just post a note on the Twin and Minnesota Twins pages noting discussion at [[4]]? I'm not really up on redirects and DAB, so rather than do the equivalent of making a DAB entry with 14 blue links, I thought I'd ask someone who has been around the block a few times on these issues. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following up on Talk:YMCA (disambiguation), i started the list-article per discussion. If that seems stable, i agree that reducing the disambiguation page will then be appropriate. --doncram (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, glad you like it. I also started up List of Elks buildings, List of Odd Fellows buildings, and List of Knights of Pythias buildings which are similar in having dab pages like the YMCA buildings one. Also, I added "See also" about those fraternal organizations' buildings to the List of Masonic buildings list-article. The participants there might open up anytime i suppose from seeing that or from watching my contributions; i have little idea when it is safe to say the articles are stable. I will plug away for a while opening up linked articles so those who don't understand redlinks won't be too confused when they come across these, and otherwise develop the list-articles. Hopefully quietly. Since i will be doing that, maybe we should wait to change/reduce the dab pages. I do think there is need for short dab pages like "YMCA Hotel", now a redirect to the big combo dab page. I could plug along for a month or two and let you know when i am done. But also I don't mind if you prefer to address the YMCA dab page sooner. --doncram (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mere topics aren't linked. Links on Wikipedia are article links. And they are color coded by type. Existing articles, and planned articles. If they weren't some sort of article, they wouldn't be linked at all - there would be no need for a link, because there would be no destination. By the way, there shouldn't be too many redlinks on a page. Pages with large numbers of redlinks are called creation guides. I'd say more than 20 is an excessive number of links. They should probably be moved to the talk page. The Transhumanist 10:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't like alphabetical indexes, and feel they have no uses, then make a list of all of them and nominate them for deletion at WP:AfD. The pros and cons will come to light. The Transhumanist 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing them manually is very tedious.

A utility to strip them and place them in a file would be even better.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to what you wrote on the "Inception" page:

I understand that this is not a dictionary, and I'm not asking for a full page based on the word. However think about it, if all it takes is one 8 word sentence that may help people better understand something, don't you think its worth it? Not only that you didn't answer my question, which was why it was removed. You seem to have an idea why it was moved, but do you know for a fact that it was removed because wikipedia is "Not a dictionary"? One more thing, if your going to use "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" as an argument, then you might want to tell someone that these pages need editing as well: Pirate (disambiguation) and Crime (disambiguation) and many others. LaughinSkull (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please respond to my query at Talk:Norm MacDonald if you care. — AjaxSmack 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The debate about the spelling of Norm MacDonald vs Macdonald may be finally coming to a conclusion. I would welcome and request your input on the Norm MacDonald talk page. RedEyedCajun (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I missed the previous vandalism, usually I check or go to the page after to be sure. Thanks for fixing it and leaving me a message! Ocaasi, 69.142.154.10 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...I'd like to present you with the sword of good faith, a long forgotten and obscure tradition that does not fit into the standard Wikipedia praise economy.

It seems fitting to me because I have been impressed by your approach to Wikipedia, and your desire to make an article as good and as helpful to readers as it can be, beyond process wonkery. Concerning Harry Potter, I am not a subject expert, but you never said to me "you don't know what you are talking about" (which would not have been a chivalrous remark!). I review carefully, but am fallible, and you raised my shortcomings with tact (another knightly quality). Finally, you are willing to revise your position in the light of evidence, yet also not walk away or give up. In short, you have shown in short measure all the qualities of a knightly Wikipedian.

If you consider the knightly trappings to be as much nonsense as barnstars, please just take this message as appreciation for your contributions. Otherwise, in this somewhat ironic take on the praise economy, arise Sir Propaniath :) Geometry guy 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last time I checked the template is called Films directed by Michael Apted. Not TV shows or whatever the hell that is, smart ass.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip you gave me on the House of Night talk page a while back. I'm applying it to La Femme Nikita. -- James26 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

some time ago, you moved Palacký University, Olomouc to Palacký University of Olomouc. I would like to ask you to do the same with The Department of Musicology at the Palacky University Olomouc. I propose to rename it into Department of Musicology (Palacký University, Faculty of Philosophy), putting it into the same line with Centre for Clinical Legal Education (Palacký University, Faculty of Law). I am not sure whether the latter is the best way to name an article, if you have any better idea, please change both the Musicology department and the Clinical Centre.

I merely write on Wiki, the technical things like renaming articles are beyond my capabilities. I would be thankful, if you could help me with that.

Best Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(same text at User talk:GTBacchus)

Hey. There's currently a discussion at Talk:Rachel Berry (Glee) about moving it over the disambiguation page. I thought you might be interested, as you participated in the previous discussion. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Propaniac/su, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Propaniac/su and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Propaniac/su during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently contributed to List of Foursquare Badges. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Talk:List of Foursquare Badges#Images. Thank you. --Flyguy33 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as List of Heartbeat episodes (series 9-16), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.tv.com/heartbeat/a-dogs-life/episode/202429/summary.html, http://www.tv.com/heartbeat/skeletons-and-cupboards/episode/200062/summary.html, http://www.tv.com/heartbeat/the-seven-year-itch/episode/199868/summary.html, and many other reviews on tv.com., and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:List of Heartbeat episodes (series 9-16) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, List of Heartbeat episodes (series 9-16), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:List of Heartbeat episodes (series 9-16) with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:List of Heartbeat episodes (series 9-16). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:List of Heartbeat episodes (series 9-16) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want to let you know about the tagging; I don't think you added the infringing material. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Campbell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Campbell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the 2010 RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Atsme. Propaniac, thanks for creating Merlin (poem)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The Britannica is a tertiary source. Please acquaint yourself with WP:RS.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

^{Atsme📞📧} 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ABC Radio (Australia). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#ABC Radio (Australia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Caldecott (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:TracyFlick2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LucasKannou (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]